cruci(fiction) Deedat vs. Douglas, brilliant-- Must watch!

  • Thread starter Thread starter جوري
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 72
  • Views Views 11K
vale's lily: I think you need this.


You need to concern yourself with the portions of interest if at all and put me on your ignore list- I don't interfere with your posts and likewise I don't want any comments from you with regards to my person/style or writing!

all the best!
 
All I'm saying, lily, is that you would probably feel a lot happier if you would let people like Hugo get to you less.
 
Incidentally, that article you posted is perhaps the best on the subject I've ever seen. I'm going to have a hard time attempting to meet or surpass it with the one I'm writing.
 
This is a great article in articulating and giving evidence that sin is not inherited from Adam through all mankind, although I have NO SLIGHTEST DOUBT that Hugo is going to excuse himself from reading this.

Hugo, are you really not going to respond to the points made in this article?


τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1379244 said:

It appears from the above indeed that you are the one who has no clue what he is talking about:

“…No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another…” (Quran 6:164)
“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)
None can reject that in these two verses, the first from the Quran and the second from the Bible, is an allusion to the same meaning: that the Just God will never punish people for the sins of others.
Christianity alleges that God created humans to live eternally in Heaven, and that when Adam ate from the tree from which he had been forbidden, God punished him through death and banishment from Heaven. They further assert that as death was inherited by his progeny, so too was the sin of their father, which was a permanent stain on the hearts of humanity, never to be removed except through a sacrifice so great that it would oblige God to forgive humanity. This sacrifice would be nothing other than the sacrifice of God himself, incarnate in His “son” Jesus. Therefore Christianity deems all of humanity as ****ed to Hell for the sin of Adam from which they could never be cleansed, except through the belief that God became incarnate and died for Adam’s sin, ritualized as Baptism, through which Christians are ‘born again’ into the world, but this time free of sin.[1] So we see that the theory of ‘Original Sin’ forms the basis of various Christian beliefs, from the crucifixion of Jesus to the concept of salvation and savior from Hell. It forms the very basis for the mission of Jesus himself.
So the questions arise, is humanity guilty for the sin which Adam committed by eating from the tree he was forbidden? Must we all repent from that great sin? In what way is one to repent? And if so, what is the fate of those who did not?
Islam strictly promotes the notion that the punishment of sins will only be faced by those who commit them. Sin is not a hereditary trait or ‘stain’ passed to one’s progeny one generation to another. All people will be accountable to what only they themselves did in this life. Therefore, even though the Quran mentions the sin of Adam and how he was banished from the Garden, it places no responsibility on the shoulders of his progeny. None of the Prophets before Jesus were known to have preached this concept, nor were any other beliefs or rituals based upon this belief. Rather, salvation from Hell and attainment of Paradise was achieved through the belief in One God and obedience to His commandments, a message preached by all prophets, including Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, as well.
The Oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful

As for the sin of Adam, the Quran tells us that he repented for his sin. God revealed to him words with which to repent, which he then accepted from him.
“Then Adam received Words (of forgiveness) from his Lord, and he accepted his repentance. Verily, He is the One Who repeatedly accepts repentance, the Most Merciful.” (Quran 2:37)
Through God’s acceptance of Adam’s repentance, Adam was cleansed of the sin which he committed. God in the Quran repeatedly ascribes to Himself attribute of mercy and forgiveness. He also mentions that from His Names are The Oft-Forgiving, The Most Merciful, the Accepter of Repentance, and others, all of which emphasize the All-Encompassing Mercy of God. Even to those who have sinned much and may lose hope in the forgiveness of God, He says:
“Say: ‘O My slaves who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of God, indeed God forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’” (Quran 39:53)
If a person sins, all they need to do is truly repent from their heart, and they will find God Ever Merciful. Adam did sin, and the sin did stain his heart, but it was removed through his repentance. The Prophet Muhammad said:
“Indeed if a believer sins, a black spot covers his heart. If he repents, and stops from his sin, and seeks forgiveness for it, his heart becomes clean again. If he persists (instead of repenting), it increases until covers his heart…” (Ibn Maajah)
Even if we were to say that Adam did not repent, that stain is not passed on to further generations. Therefore, we see that God does not need any physical sacrifice in order to forgive sins, and that no sin is too great for His Mercy; to say so would be to ascribe deficiency to His Excellence and Perfection. The Prophet Muhammad relates to us that God said:
“O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great at it.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
God says in the Quran in regards to sacrifice, that it is the intention of the person when offering the sacrifice which is of importance, and not the actual sacrifice itself.
“It is neither their meat nor their blood that reaches God, but it is piety from you that reaches Him...” (Quran 22:37)
If we were to implement this verse in regards to the original sin and God incarnate sacrificing himself in order to forgive all of humanity, we see that even without seeking repentance for Adam’s sin, God forgave human beings due to His Own Sacrifice. Could He not have forgiven them without such a sacrifice?
It is also mentioned in the bible:
“To what purpose (is) the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; (it is) iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear (them). And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”[2]



The Divine Will of the Perfect God

So Adam sought forgiveness for His sin, and God accepted it from Him. Another crucial point which must be mentioned is that God created humans with a free will, and He knew that humanity would sin. For this reason, no human is expected to be perfect, but rather, God knows that they will sin. What is expected from humans is that they repent from their sin. The Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said:
“All children of Adam repetitively make mistakes, but the best of those who make mistakes are those who repent.” (Ibn Maajah)
The Prophet also said:
“By Him in Whose Hand is My soul (i.e. God), if you did not commit sins, God would do away with you and come with a race which committed sins. They would seek forgiveness from God and He would forgive them. (Saheeh Muslim #4936)
So here we see that it was in the Great and Wise plan of God that Adam sin and that God forgive him for that sin, and to say that Adam went against the Universal Will of God by sinning is a blasphemy against the All Encompassing Knowledge, Power, and Will of God. Christianity goes so far as to say that God even repented from the creation of humans! May God be free from all defects people attribute to Him. In Genesis 6:6, it says to quote:
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart[1]
To agree to this would mean that Adam did something which was out of the Will, Power, and Knowledge of God, and that God regretted His creation of humans. God is All-Perfect and so are His deeds, and there is no defect or shortcoming in them; He does nothing except with total and complete perfection and wisdom. Islam in no way agrees to this belief and, as we mentioned, all of what occurred in the story of Adam was within the perfect plan of God. The Prophet said:
“Indeed God put everything into its proper measure fifty thousand years before the creation of the heavens and the earths.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
God mentions in the Quran what took place between the angels when He announced the creation of humans, and from this we see that it was known to God and part of His Great and Divine Plan that humans would sin. God says:
“And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: ‘Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth.’ They said: ‘Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You.’ He (God) said: ‘Indeed I know that which you do not know.’” (Quran 2:30)
It is also clear from these verses that God did not create humans as immortal, and that death was prescribed for them from the beginning of their creation. As for the consequences of the sin of Adam, which was his extradition from the Garden, this was felt by those to come after him and this is only natural. If one was to become drunk and have a car accident, and some of the passengers die, the sin of driver effects the passengers in their death, but that does not mean that the passengers are to be held to account for the sin of the driver.
The Innocent

Another question which must be dealt with is the fate of those who came before the claim that God became incarnate and sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity, as well as the fate of those who were not baptized, as baptism is the rite which all Christians must perform in order to be cleansed of Original Sin. In Christian belief, all humans previous to the incarnation of God, including the Prophets and infants usually regarded as sinless, are not free from the Original Sin of Adam, and therefore cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, As Augustine said: “Do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.”[2] Only until recently, non-baptized infants were not buried in consecrated ground because they were believed to have died in original sin.
Also, we know that the verse in the Apostles’ Creed, “… and (Jesus) descended into Hell”[3], is said to mean that Jesus descended to Hell to free the righteous souls who were there due to the sin of Adam. This leads us to believe that all those before the coming of Jesus are in Hell, even if they were from the righteous. Paul mentioned this himself in Galatians:
“… a man is not justified by the works of the law ... for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Galatians 2:16)
Here it is clear that adherence to the commandments of God is not enough for salvation, even for those before Jesus. This also holds true to all those who have not received the message of Christianity. We must ask; why did not the Prophets before Jesus call to this notion of original sin? Did they lie when they said that it was enough to Worship One God and obey His commandments to achieve Paradise? Why did not God come and free humanity from sin at the time of Adam so that the righteous and others would not be in Hell due to his sin? Why are infants, humanity before Jesus, and others who have not heard about Christianity, held accountable for a sin they never committed, nor have knowledge about how to remit themselves from it? The truth of the matter is that the notion of “Original Sin”, as many others, was one introduced by Paul and later expounded on by Christian scholars and councils.
“The Old Testament says nothing about the transmission of hereditary sin to the entire human race… the main scriptural affirmation of the doctrine is found in the writings of St. Paul…”[4]
This concept though, was expounded by Augustine of Hippo, one of the most prominent Christian scholars in History. The basis of this concept is that “the deliberate sin of the first man (Adam) is the cause of original sin.”[5] The Second Council of Orange (529 C.E.) declared, “One man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul.”[6]
The concept of original sin is one which has no basis in previous scriptures regarded as divine by Christianity. None of the Prophets before Jesus were known to have preached this concept, nor were any other beliefs or rituals based upon them. Rather, salvation from Hell was achieved through the belief in One God and obedience to His commandments which was preached by all prophets, including the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, may God praise them.
Summary

In Islam, the key to salvation is the belief in and worship of the One True, Unique and Perfect God and obedience to His commandments, the same message brought by all Prophets. Islam preaches that a person must work righteousness and avoid sin to attain Paradise, and that if one sins, that they seek repentance for it from their heart. Through this and the Mercy and Grace of God, they will enter Paradise. Islam does not deem that all those before the advent of Muhammad are doomed to Hell, but rather that each nation was sent a prophet by the same One God, and it was upon them to follow His commandments. Those who have not heard of the message are not held liable to follow Islam, and God will deal with them with His Perfect Justice on the Day of Judgment. Infants and children of both Muslims and disbelievers alike are in enjoyment in Paradise upon death. Due to the infinite Justice of God:
“No one laden with burdens can bear another’s burden. And We never punish (people) until We have sent (to them) a Messenger (to give warning).” (Quran 17:15)

Footnotes:
[1] King James Version.​

[2] De Anima (III).​

[3] The creed based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent.​

[4] Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions. P.830. 1999, Merriam Webster, inc.​

[5] De Nuptiis et Concupiscentiâ, II, xxvi, 43​

[6] Enchiridion Symbolorum, Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger. n. 175 (145)​

. Source



 
Hugo: Calling sin an infection is like calling logical fallacies a genetic disorder. Making mistakes of any kind is an act, not a condition. And even if sin were a condition that we all have from birth, that would just mean that we're no more responsible for it than any other accident of birth, including skin color. And if there is any better sign of what absurdities Christian theology forces one to make oneself believe than saying it is our obligation to accept responsibility for the actions of another person who died eons before we were conceived, I don't know what it is. It's quicksand, though, because that very same Christian mindset, as a natural defense mechanism necessary for and inherent to its survival, automatically interprets common sense as a lack of theological sophistication or understanding. When it is contradictory and threatening to Christian thought, that is; never at any other time. Then again, I've seen precisely the same situation in much of philosophy.

Why is it absurd? Can Christianity escape censure just be declaring something unchristian, have we nothing to learn from the shame of the crusades - I know Muslim logic does this all the time when any thing bad happens, just say it was unislamic at that does the trick - so Muslim Armies invade and subjugate whole nations or a suicide bomber makes a video claiming he is doing God's will, quoting the Qu'ran and then blows up a Mosque in Iraq - does that not make you feel responsible, or even say what is there in Islam that caused this to happen, not even a hint that you might need to think again? I cannot feel that way.

You see the obligation for a Christian arises because God's way of salvation was costly and it was wrought for me as much as it was for Moses. The old spiritual asks the question "were you there when they crucified my Lord" but you I assume have no idea what that question means or any desire to say "yes". You can see no cost to God, no effort on God's part to redeem us, no way of salvation and the quicksand that brings is called self-righteousness.
 
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1379235 said:
ah-- oral tradition so many decades after the matter and in a language other than that which your god allegedly spoke is indeed a recipe for disaster. Mot the case in Islam, not only was the oral tradition the pride of Arabia given their poetry all over the cities, but every word of the Quran was recorded during the time of the prophet as well, in other words both oral and written existed side by side ALWAYS.. but you already knew that, not only do you have a book well referenced to that fact, it has in fact been discussed here before amply.

I see so Ehrman is wrong but only when he speaks about Islam where oral transmission was perfect - so much for the Quality of Ehrman's scholarship if its all about cherry picking. If you look at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html you will see that the earliest known Arabic papyrus PERF No. 558 [22 AH/642CE] originating from Egypt which is some 12 years after Mohammed's death so where is all this mass of writing down you speak of - I have seen various numbers of the scribes who did it and some even quote as many as 60 yet we seem to have no evidence for any of it, papyrus or anything else and as you know there are no Arabic inscriptions of any kind before about 3-4CE?
 
Why is it absurd? Can Christianity escape censure just be declaring something unchristian, have we nothing to learn from the shame of the crusades - I know Muslim logic does this all the time when any thing bad happens, just say it was unislamic at that does the trick - so Muslim Armies invade and subjugate whole nations or a suicide bomber makes a video claiming he is doing God's will, quoting the Qu'ran and then blows up a Mosque in Iraq - does that not make you feel responsible, or even say what is there in Islam that caused this to happen, not even a hint that you might need to think again? I cannot feel that way.

No, it doesn't make me feel responsible. Never a hint. And if a hint ever does come, I will know that I am becoming a fool. Every individual is responsible solely, purely, and exclusively for that one individual's own actons and no one else's. Case closed. I will not deign to debate such an inarguable point, especially with someone like you who debates just for the sake of it.

You see the obligation for a Christian arises because God's way of salvation was costly and it was wrought for me as much as it was for Moses. The old spiritual asks the question "were you there when they crucified my Lord" but you I assume have no idea what that question means or any desire to say "yes". You can see no cost to God, no effort on God's part to redeem us, no way of salvation and the quicksand that brings is called self-righteousness.

You are deliberately setting up a straw man and replacing cliche for relevant argument. What I speak of is not the size of a cost or anything about Moses (P) but the mere fact that no one should have to pay anyone else's debt for them: justice demands that either nothing has to be paid by anyone (because the debt is simply erased) or the one owed must pay it himself. There is no middle ground. The inevitable monetary analogy of Christians on this matter is slyly loaded, assuming what it’s trying to establish in its own premise (that they money must be paid by somebody). Forgiveness and punishment are not only mutually exclusive, they're opposites. The article said it all, but you intentionally choose not to see it.
 
Last edited:
This is a great article in articulating and giving evidence that sin is not inherited from Adam through all mankind, although I have NO SLIGHTEST DOUBT that Hugo is going to excuse himself from reading this.

Hugo, are you really not going to respond to the points made in this article?

Oh, he may respond eventually, but if so it will be a selective partial response in which he evades every single point he actually does address, probably by just bombarding us with ridiculous and mostly irrelevant questions. Remember that I said that.
 
If you look at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html you will see that the earliest known Arabic papyrus PERF No. 558 [22 AH/642CE] originating from Egypt which is some 12 years after Mohammed's death so where is all this mass of writing down you speak of

Go check the "muallaqat" which is poetry that has been written by famous arab poets and hung on/in the kaaba, it was the pride of the pagans that they used them as blessings.
 
I see so Ehrman is wrong but only when he speaks about Islam where oral transmission was perfect - so much for the Quality of Ehrman's scholarship if its all about cherry picking. If you look at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html you will see that the earliest known Arabic papyrus PERF No. 558 [22 AH/642CE] originating from Egypt which is some 12 years after Mohammed's death so where is all this mass of writing down you speak of - I have seen various numbers of the scribes who did it and some even quote as many as 60 yet we seem to have no evidence for any of it, papyrus or anything else and as you know there are no Arabic inscriptions of any kind before about 3-4CE?

Again, not only was the oral tradition in original tongue and memorized while the prophet was in their midst, but all was written as it was revealed on leather on bones on parchment, then unified into a text with loose fragments burnt and sent to four different Islamic regions. I am so sick and tired of your bull ****, and I am not sure who you are working to convince with it? like the time when you erroneously and deliberately misquote Azami's book to make your usual non-points counting on the fact that no one would check after you. If you want to fool yourself that your paganistic religion is so avant-garde and that your man worship is worthwhile please by all means don't let me stop you. But I do have a day job and other responsibilities on the side and can't sit all day to clean the coprolith you leave behind. Be happy in man worship and die upon it and buzz off!

cheers
 
No, it doesn't make me feel responsible. Never a hint. And if a hint ever does come, I will know that I am becoming a fool. Every individual is responsible solely, purely, and exclusively for that one individual's own actons and no one else's. Case closed. I will not deign to debate such an inarguable point, especially with someone like you who debates just for the sake of it.
Well that is you position but I take the position simple stated by Herman Melville - "We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibres connect us with our fellow men". But I suppose there is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your own making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besting your society. Its all the fault of the West, of infidels or anyone. I like to debate so I can see more than one side of an issue, you do it seems because you know you are right - case closed?

You are deliberately setting up a straw man and replacing cliche for relevant argument. What I speak of is not the size of a cost or anything about Moses (P) but the mere fact that no one should have to pay anyone else's debt for them: justice demands that either nothing has to be paid by anyone (because the debt is simply erased) or the one owed must pay it himself. There is no middle ground. The inevitable monetary analogy of Christians on this matter is slyly loaded, assuming what it’s trying to establish in its own premise (that they money must be paid by somebody). Forgiveness and punishment are not only mutually exclusive, they're opposites. The article said it all, but you intentionally choose not to see it.
I will reply to the tendentious article later but can you even conceive of a case where the debtor cannot pay no matter what they do so what happens then if justice is to be served? If God is Holy how can he let the guilty go free because to do so would be unjust and if God is unjust he is not Holy - do you see the difficulty?
 
Go check the "muallaqat" which is poetry that has been written by famous arab poets and hung on/in the kaaba, it was the pride of the pagans that they used them as blessings.

Well don't argue with me tell Islamic-awareness that you know of earlier extant Arabic manuscripts that they do. These poems date from 530-570AD and possibly span a 100 years but as far as I know there are no existing copies earlier that the 8th century and it is tradition not history that suggest they were hung on the Kaaba though it sounds feasible to me - but if you can find more information that would be excellent.
 
I am responding here to the almost 3,000 word post, copied of course from another Islamic site, which itself was copied from... dealing with the topic of original sin. The article does not discuss Christian doctrine except in a highly tendentious manner. I will begin by saying that ultimate mystery of the origin of evil is not open to explanation by man and we have no idea really from the Bible other than a few scattered hints as to why God allowed it in the first place and as a consequence He would have to find a way to forgive us. All we can say (and I think it is the same in Islam) is that God is not the author of sin, God does not need sin in order to enhance his glory, in no way is God party to repeated acts of sin and finally, the responsibility of mankind is not diminished or excused on the grounds that they had no part in its inception.

Revelation provides the explanation of what is unequivocally a matter of universal experience - the hereditary tendency to sin which sooner or later makes itself evident in everyone. The Bible say that the consequences of sin have descended upon all men, and particularly the inherent and persistent bias towards sin. One might note in this regard Genesis 8:21 (NIV) "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done" and Psalm 51:5 (NIV) (NIV) "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

So man finds himself as the reverse of the original righteousness and he has lost the power to become and habitually to remain righteous. This does not mean than man is as bad as he could possibly be but only that the evil principle has invaded each part of human nature.

I have no idea in the article where this idea of banishment from Heaven comes from and the writer seems to be confusing Satan with humanity. Christianity does not condemn all humanity to hell because of Adam for we know that all have sinned and come short of God's standard. This is further made plain because EACH man/woman must come to repentance and faith themselves and like Abraham that faith is counted as righteousness, that is Gods righteousness and like Abraham we still have to live in the body so still need daily forgiveness and a daily struggle after righteousness just as he did.

So no we are not punished for Adams sin but for our own. The issues is a simple one, if God is absolutely Holy he cannot simply even in mercy wipe the slate clean because then he would be unjust and if he is unjust he cannot be absolutely Holy so he has to provide a way of salvation that preserves who he is. Even in life there is always a cost to pay for sin by someone - if you kill my bother and I forgive you then it was not a free exchange of wrong for good was it, my brother is still dead?

The article quotes Isaiah chapter 1 though offered no explanation but oner notes the words found there which say "come let us reason together..." and this exactly mirrors what Abraham did with Isaac, he reasoned that God would provide a way out so again is not free, a price had to be paid. Later in the article we are told that God is perfect in every way so how can he be perfect is he lets the sinner go free, because sine is deserting of punishment. So I can look back and what God has done through the death and resurrection and Abraham could look forward and this who never heard any revelation have the revelation in nature and we can safely leave them to God.
 
Well that is you position but I take the position simple stated by Herman Melville - "We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibres connect us with our fellow men". But I suppose there is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your own making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besting your society.

Anyone who is honest with themselves knows that they have a thousand problems of their own making consisting of their own personal failings. If I am responsible for any of the ills besetting society, it is only those ills that I personally have contributed to. If you’re not the one who did something, it’s not your fault. It’s the fault of the one who did it. I said that this is not debatable and I meant it. I will not sit here and seriously defend the position that people are responsible only for their own actions and not the actions of other people who are beyond their control and who died millennia and millennia before they were conceived.

Its all the fault of the West, of infidels or anyone. I like to debate so I can see more than one side of an issue, you do it seems because you know you are right - case closed?

Mudslinging and straw men. Are you actually putting any effort into anything you’re saying? Exactly who do you think is finding anything you say convincing?? That’s not rhetorical. I want an answer.

I will reply to the tendentious article later…

Tendentious? Is that the best you’ve got, even for the briefest of snubs? Calling an article from a pro-Islamic dawah site tendentious? I guess that means I can dismiss any pro-Christian source you ever cite the same way then.

But can you even conceive of a case where the debtor cannot pay no matter what they do so what happens then if justice is to be served? If God is Holy how can he let the guilty go free because to do so would be unjust and if God is unjust he is not Holy - do you see the difficulty?

If a person cannot pay a debt to someone who doesn’t need money (or anything), and they genuinely are penitent about what the debt is over, and the one to whom they are indebted loves them very much and knows whether or not their penitence is sincere, then the only possible just action is to erase the debt altogether. No one has to pay. The only difficulty is trying to make it sound like the one to whom the person is indebted is willing to clear the debt when all they’re doing is transferring it to an innocent person when there is no need or reason to do so.

I repeat: the entire "paying someone else's debt of money" analogy is loaded in the first place. It's begging the question, because it already assumes what it's supposed to demonstrate (that it is an automatic requirement that anyone need pay anything at all).
 
Last edited:
I am responding here to the almost 3,000 word post, copied of course from another Islamic site, which itself was copied from... dealing with the topic of original sin. The article does not discuss Christian doctrine except in a highly tendentious manner.

There’s that word again. Do you even know what it means? Your own article is tendentious, for crying out loud. Everything both of us are saying here is tendentious! There’s nothing necessarily wrong with being tendentious.

I will begin by saying that ultimate mystery of the origin of evil is not open to explanation by man and we have no idea really from the Bible other than a few scattered hints as to why God allowed it in the first place and as a consequence He would have to find a way to forgive us. All we can say (and I think it is the same in Islam) is that God is not the author of sin, God does not need sin in order to enhance his glory, in no way is God party to repeated acts of sin and finally, the responsibility of mankind is not diminished or excused on the grounds that they had no part in its inception.

I could just as easily say that you’re not excused on the grounds of having no part in the inception in the creation of the atomic bomb. You probably hadn’t been born yet, and if you had, I doubt very much there’s anything you could have done about it. Not contributing to an act of evil yourself? Check. Not able to prevent it from happening (especially since it’s already happened)? Check. Accountable for the act yourself? Big, frickin’ red X. This is, God willing, the last I will say on the matter to you, because it has never been any more debatable than it is now.

Revelation provides the explanation of what is unequivocally a matter of universal experience—the hereditary tendency to sin which sooner or later makes itself evident in everyone. The Bible say that the consequences of sin have descended upon all men, and particularly the inherent and persistent bias towards sin. One might note in this regard Genesis 8:21 (NIV) "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done" and Psalm 51:5 (NIV) (NIV) "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

Having a tendency to do something is not the same as doing it. Some people are born with homosexual tendencies yet refrain from the act. I myself seem to have been born with a lack of ability to empathize, yet I am capable of behaving compassionately. Inclination =/= action.

So man finds himself as the reverse of the original righteousness and he has lost the power to become and habitually to remain righteous. This does not mean than man is as bad as he could possibly be but only that the evil principle has invaded each part of human nature.

The only way evil can invade your nature is if you willingly let it in.

I have no idea in the article where this idea of banishment from Heaven comes from and the writer seems to be confusing Satan with humanity. Christianity does not condemn all humanity to hell because of Adam for we know that all have sinned and come short of God's standard. This is further made plain because EACH man/woman must come to repentance and faith themselves and like Abraham that faith is counted as righteousness, that is Gods righteousness and like Abraham we still have to live in the body so still need daily forgiveness and a daily struggle after righteousness just as he did.

You believe in free daily forgiveness for individual sins yet not in free forgiveness for anyone’s collective sins, because God can’t forgive without torturing and killing. You believe that our own struggle for righteousness is necessarily an individual thing, yet not that we should only be judged as individuals in terms of how it comes out. I don’t know which inconsistency is worse.

So no we are not punished for Adams sin but for our own.

But if our own sin is inevitable because of his own, it amounts to the same. X resulting directly from Z is tantamount to X resulting directly from Y which itself results directly from Z. This is basic transitive logic. If you need it in plain English, it’s like you’re saying, “I’m not blaming you because a genetic predisposition makes you a mouth-breather: I’m just saying that each individual breath you take that way is your own fault, and even though you inherited the condition from your father you’re not being blamed because of him.”

The issues is a simple one, if God is absolutely Holy he cannot simply even in mercy wipe the slate clean because then he would be unjust…

No he wouldn’t! Not unless forgiveness itself is inherently unjust.

And if he is unjust he cannot be absolutely Holy so he has to provide a way of salvation that preserves who he is. Even in life there is always a cost to pay for sin by someone—if you kill my bother and I forgive you then it was not a free exchange of wrong for good was it, my brother is still dead?

Of course he’s still dead. Nobody said that forgiving a murderer has to resurrect the dead. The fact that a wrong act has been forgiven does not mean that it wasn’t wrong, nor does it being wrong mean that it cannot be forgiven. What am I doing even bothering to respond to this argument???

The article quotes Isaiah chapter 1 though offered no explanation but oner notes the words found there which say "come let us reason together..." and this exactly mirrors what Abraham did with Isaac, he reasoned that God would provide a way out so again is not free, a price had to be paid.

What?

Later in the article we are told that God is perfect in every way so how can he be perfect is he lets the sinner go free, because sine is deserting of punishment.

So it’s better to punish an innocent person in the guilty one’s stead than to let the guilty one not be punished when you absolutely know that they are truly repentant?

So I can look back and what God has done through the death and resurrection and Abraham could look forward and this who never heard any revelation have the revelation in nature and we can safely leave them to God.

Again it’s hard to tell exactly what you’re saying, but I’m finding that I’m caring less and less. In any event, type more carefully next time.
 
Last edited:
Tendentious? Is that the best you’ve got, even for the briefest of snubs? Calling an article from a pro-Islamic dawah site tendentious? I guess that means I can dismiss any pro-Christian source you ever cite the same way then.
Is a pro-Islamic dawah site infallible?
 
There’s that word again. Do you even know what it means? Your own article is tendentious, for crying out loud. Everything both of us are saying here is tendentious! There’s nothing necessarily wrong with being tendentious.

Very possible but I guess you of course are entirely free of bias. There is everything wrong with being tendentious because it is partisan and its writers assert things without a solid basis in fact because they want to parade a particular message. If my post was tendentious then show that to be the case but all I have done is briefly outline the Christian position, you don't have to agree with it.



I could just as easily say that you’re not excused on the grounds of having no part in the inception in the creation of the atomic bomb. You probably hadn’t been born yet, and if you had, I doubt very much there’s anything you could have done about it. Not contributing to an act of evil yourself? Check. Not able to prevent it from happening (especially since it’s already happened)? Check. Accountable for the act yourself? Big, frickin’ red X. This is, God willing, the last I will say on the matter to you, because it has never been any more debatable than it is now.



Having a tendency to do something is not the same as doing it. Some people are born with homosexual tendencies yet refrain from the act. I myself seem to have been born with a lack of ability to empathize, yet I am capable of behaving compassionately. Inclination =/= action.



The only way evil can invade your nature is if you willingly let it in.



You believe in free daily forgiveness for individual sins yet not in free forgiveness for anyone’s collective sins, because God can’t forgive without torturing and killing. You believe that our own struggle for righteousness is necessarily an individual thing, yet not that we should only be judged as individuals in terms of how it comes out. I don’t know which inconsistency is worse.



But if our own sin is inevitable because of his own, it amounts to the same. X resulting directly from Z is tantamount to X resulting directly from Y which itself results directly from Z. This is basic transitive logic. If you need it in plain English, it’s like you’re saying, “I’m not blaming you because a genetic predisposition makes you a mouth-breather: I’m just saying that each individual breath you take that way is your own fault, and even though you inherited the condition from your father you’re not being blamed because of him.”



No he wouldn’t! Not unless forgiveness itself is inherently unjust.



Of course he’s still dead. Nobody said that forgiving a murderer has to resurrect the dead. The fact that a wrong act has been forgiven does not mean that it wasn’t wrong, nor does it being wrong mean that it cannot be forgiven. What am I doing even bothering to respond to this argument???



What?



So it’s better to punish an innocent person in the guilty one’s stead than to let the guilty one not be punished when you absolutely know that they are truly repentant?



Again it’s hard to tell exactly what you’re saying, but I’m finding that I’m caring less and less. In any event, type more carefully next time.[/QUOTE]
 
tendentious: having or showing a definite tendency, bias, or purpose: "a tendentious novel". -dictionary.com
 
I see so Ehrman is wrong but only when he speaks about Islam where oral transmission was perfect - so much for the Quality of Ehrman's scholarship if its all about cherry picking. If you look at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html you will see that the earliest known Arabic papyrus PERF No. 558 [22 AH/642CE] originating from Egypt which is some 12 years after Mohammed's death so where is all this mass of writing down you speak of - I have seen various numbers of the scribes who did it and some even quote as many as 60 yet we seem to have no evidence for any of it, papyrus or anything else and as you know there are no Arabic inscriptions of any kind before about 3-4CE?

can you show me where Professor Ehrman mentioned Islam? i would like to see that, please tell me EXACTLY where to find it.

regarding what Ehrman ACTUALLY says, he talks about the child's game where you "whisper in one's ear." is the Qur'an "whispered in one's ear?" go to a Sunni Masjid at either Fajr, Maghrib, Isha or at Taraweeh during Ramadhan and tell me what you hear! the Qur'an is recited ALOUD! IF the Imam makes a mistake, he is corrected and ANYONE may correct him!

to sum, portions of the Qur'an are recited ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER 3 times a day, EVERY DAY, for the last 1400 years and during Ramadhan the ENTIRE Qur'an is recited ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER over a period of 27-29 evenings and ALSO ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER in the mornings during the last 10 days of Ramadhan!

regarding crucifiction, are there any contemporaneous eyewitness accounts, and please furnish one that is less than 12 years from the date of the crucifiction because BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS it appears to be tradition and NOT history! [we shall use the same method you "accept" against the Qur'an and apply it to the alleged "murder" of Jesus, PBUH. that seems equal and fair, doesn't it?]

and let me ask the question, what is the EARLIEST "evidence" that you have for the "murder" of Jesus, PBUH? we shall then "evaluate" your "evidence," fair enough?
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top